posted November 03, 2013 04:19 PM            

Globally, scientists with solid empirical-based backgrounds are saying there are severe problems with many of the 2007 IPCC predictions. Namely, that many of the predictions are flat-out false based on the IPCC's political agenda, or wildly inflated by failed climate models.

New research by Houston and Dean has determined that the IPCC prediction of dangerously high acceleration of sea levels is likely both a combination of invalid climate models and desired political outcomes. They discovered that actual tidal gauge measurements over the last 80 years shows sea level increases decelerating, not accelerating per the IPCC prediction.

"Working with the complete monthly-averaged records of 57 U.S. tide gauges archived in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level data base that had lengths of 60-156 years (with a mean time span of 82 years), however, they determined that there had not been any acceleration in the rate-of-rise of the sea level along the shorelines of the United States over that period of time, during which interval the world's climate alarmists claim the planet had warmed at a rate and to a level that were unprecedented over the past one to two millennia. Quite to the contrary, in fact, they detected a slight deceleration of -0.0014 mm/year/year. And working with 25 of the tide gauge records that contained data for the period 1930-2010, they calculated an even larger deceleration of -0.0130 mm/year/year.....also report that they "obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge records.....they rhetorically ask why the concomitant worldwide-temperature increase "has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years," and, indeed, "why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years."" [Houston, J.R. and Dean, R.G. 2011: Journal of Coastal Research] Read this and more--lots more--at:

http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-rising/

posted November 03, 2013 06:56 PM            

The scientists you cling to are shams. They ceased to become scientists once they falsified data. Instead of having an open mind that the IPCC could have an agenda (only 20 percent of them are climatologists anyway) and instead of rationalizing the obvious yourself (that only a tiny fraction of CO2 is caused by man, so how can man be the cause of climate change, and that's IF CO2 is related to climate change at all), you persist in only repeating what you are told is truth. Why don't you defend the opposing side and research it with an open mind? Just as an experiment. You might break away from the pack and see how irrational these beliefs of the "mainstream" are.

posted November 03, 2013 07:19 PM            

A new paper finds global mean sea levels rose at only 1 mm/year, equivalent to less than 4 inches per century, over the 203 year period from 1807-2010. The finding is remarkably similar to the sea level rise of 1.1-1.3 mm/yr found by the NOAA 2005-2012 Sea Level Budget, the only sea level budget which reconciles both satellite [altimeters & GRACE] & ARGO float data. The authors also find no evidence of acceleration of sea level rise, which indicates that there is no evidence of a human influence upon sea levels. In addition, the authors find that sea level rise is a localized rather than global phenomenon, with 61% of tide gauge records demonstrating no change in sea levels, 4% showing a decrease, and a minority of 35% showing a rise. This implies relative sea level change is primarily related to subsidence or post-glacial rebound [land height changes] rather than melting ice or steric sea level changes [thermal expansion from warming].

Excerpts:

If SLR is accelerating, sea levels should be nonstationary in first differences, but stationary in second differences. In none of the tide gauges and segments do the Dickey-Fuller and KPSS statistics support the accelerationist hypothesis. [i.e. there was no acceleration]

The substantive contribution of the paper is concerned with recent SLR in different parts of the world. Consensus estimates of recent GMSL rise are about 2mm/year. Our estimate is 1 mm/year. We suggest that the difference between the two estimates is induced by the widespread use of data reconstructions which inform the consensus estimates. There are two types of reconstruction. The first refers to reconstructed data for tide gauges in PSMSL prior to their year of installation. The second refers to locations where there are no tide gauges at all. Since the tide gauges currently in PSMSL are a quasi-random sample, our estimate of current GMSL rise is unbiased. If this is true, reconstruction bias is approximately 1mm/year.

Sea level rise is regional rather than global and is concentrated in the southern Baltic, the Ring of Fire, and the Atlantic coast of the US. By contrast the north-west Pacific coast and north-east coast of India are characterized by sea level fall. In the minority of locations where sea levels are rising the mean increase is about 4 mm/year and in some locations it is as large as 9 mm/year. The fact that sea level rise is not global should not detract from its importance in those parts of the world where it is a serious problem.

TIDE GAUGE LOCATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE

Michael Beenstock 1 Daniel Felsenstein 2, Eyal Frank1, Yaniv Reingewertz 1

1 Department of Economics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905,
Israel
2 Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905,
Israel

Abstract

The location of tide gauges is not random. If their locations are positively (negatively) correlated with SLR, estimates of global SLR will be biased upwards (downwards). We show that the location of tide gauges in 2000 is independent of SLR as measured by satellite altimetry. Therefore PSMSL tide gauges constitute a quasi-random sample and inferences of SLR based on them are unbiased, and there is no need for data reconstructions. By contrast, tide gauges dating back to the 19th century were located where sea levels happened to be rising. Data reconstructions based on these tide gauges are therefore likely to over-estimate sea level rise.

posted November 03, 2013 07:25 PM            

The IPCC claims a faster rate in sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 (3.1 mm/year) compared with 1961-2003 (1.8 mm/yr), see WG1 SPM p 5,7, table SPM1. To make this claim, the IPCC have employed two of their familiar misleading tricks simultaneously - (a) compare a short period with a longer period, (b) change the measurement technique.

Prior to 1993 IPCC uses the tide gauge record of sea level, which records measurements at several shorelines; in 1993 this was changed to satellite altimetry, which measures the entire ocean. The change in method coincides with an apparent acceleration of sea level rise over previous periods, which IPCC attributes to AGW, throwing out the tide gauge record, which shows significant fluctuations but no such acceleration.

To compare one set of results using one method over one time period (prior to 1993) with another set of results using a different method over another time period (after 1993) and then using this cobbled-together record to claim an accelerating trend between the two time periods is bad science, at best, especially if the record for the latter time period which uses the same method for both periods shows no acceleration is ignored.

These false claims are repeated in the main body of AR4 WG1, in section 5.5. On page 409 it is stated that "global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate" and "This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation...", with no supporting evidence. This last statement is contradicted by the papers by Holgate and Woodworth and by Douglas below.

Later on in chapter 5 (p 413), the authors acknowledge that there has been no acceleration, and illustrate their astonishing bias: "Interannual or longer variability is a major reason why no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th-century data alone (Woodworth, 1990; Douglas, 1992). Another possibility is that the sparse tide gauge network may have been inadequate to detect it if present (Gregory et al., 2001)." The IPCC authors are in denial of the facts - they 'know' that sea level rise must be accelerating, and if the data doesn't show it, then there must be something wrong with the data. On the same page is the following figure, that shows just how misleading the IPCC SPM claim is. Note the large fluctuations, and the tiny section of green line from the satellite data.

Research papers on this subject include:

J. Church and N. J. White, A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01602 (2006). They find a minute acceleration in sea level rise (0.013 mm/yr/yr).

B. C. Douglas, Global sea level acceleration, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 12,699–12,706 (1992). He finds no acceleration (despite his title!) and in fact finds a slight deceleration of -0.011 mm/yr/yr. "Thus there is no evidence for an apparent acceleration in the past 100+ years".

S. J. Holgate and P. L. Woodworth, Evidence for enhanced coastal sea level rise during the 1990s, Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L07305 (2004).

Abstract:

Sea level rise over the last 55 years is estimated to have been 1.7 ± 0.2 mm yr−1, based upon 177 tide gauges divided into 13 regions with near global coverage and using a Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) model to correct for land movements. We present evidence from altimeter data that the rate of sea level rise around the global coastline was significantly in excess of the global average over the period 1993–2002. We also show that the globally-averaged rate of coastal sea level rise for the decade centered on 1955 was significantly larger than any other decade during the past 55 years. In some models of sea level rise, enhanced coastal rise is a pre-cursor of global average rise. It remains to be seen whether the models are correct and whether global-average rates in the future reflect the high rates of coastal rise observed during the 1990s.

More recent research (not available for AR4) confirms the lack of acceleration, and in fact finds a slight deceleration:

S. J. Holgate, On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L01602 (2007).

Abstract:

Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.

Holgate is clearly a proper scientist. He uses the same method throughout (tide gauges) and compares a fifty year trend with another fifty year trend.

A more recent paper confirms that there has been no acceleration:

P. L. Woodworth et al, Evidence for the accelerations of sea level on multi-decade and century timescales, Int J Climatol, 29(6), 777-789 (2009).

Abstract:

A modification in the rate of change of sea level (i.e. an acceleration or nonlinear trend) is an important climate-related signal, which requires confirmation and explanation. In this study, the evidence for accelerations in regional and global average sea level on timescales of several decades and longer is reviewed by inter-comparison of the recent findings of different researchers and by inspection of original tide gauge records. Most sea-level data originate from Europe and North America, and both the sets display evidence for a positive acceleration, or inflexion, around 1920-1930 and a negative one around 1960. These inflexions are the main contributors to reported accelerations since the late 19th century, and to decelerations during the mid- to late 20th century. However, these characteristic features are not always found in records from other parts of the world. Although some aspects of the sea-level time series are consistent with changes in rates of globally averaged temperature changes, volcanic eruptions and natural climate variability, modelling undertaken so far has been unable to describe these features adequately. This emphasizes the need for a major enhancement of the sea-level data set, especially for those parts of the world without long tide gauge records, in order to obtain greater insight into the spatial dependence of accelerations. A number of complementary methods must be employed, of which salt marsh techniques offer the possibility of obtaining time series similar to those that would have been obtained from coastal tide gauges.

Update 2011: Two more papers showing no acceleration, in fact a deceleration:

J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean, Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses Journal of Coastal Resarch, 27, 409 – 417 (2011).

Abstract:

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.

P. J. Watson, Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research, 27, 368 – 377 (2011).

posted November 03, 2013 11:32 PM            

A rebuttal of Holgate, by Holgate (April 2004):
Sea level rise over the last 55 years is estimated to have been 1.7 ± 0.2 mm yr−1, based upon 177 tide gauges divided into 13 regions with near global coverage and using a Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) model to correct for land movements. We present evidence from altimeter data that the rate of sea level rise around the global coastline was significantly in excess of the global average over the period 1993–2002. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL019626/abstract

The 2008 paper is rather inconclusive and free: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1771/pdf
You can see on the map they provide that's there's very few places where a decline is present. It ends with this:

In spite of this reasonable consensus, it has to be admitted that the data set it is based on is limited. There is an urgent need to augment the data set of sea-level information for the past century. A tide gauge data archaeology exercise must be pursued vigorously before old records are lost completely. However, for regions without extensive tide gauge data or archaeological sea-level information, coral techniques in the tropics and salt marsh techniques at higher latitudes appear to offer a means of addressing the spatial data gaps.

So, in the lack of any indicators of even reasonably certain data, do you suggest that these guys are great evidence that sea levels aren't rising?

Holgate said last year of the debate, "The overall sense of the community is that there's a small acceleration, but there is a lot of noise in the signal." (I had to look at a cached version of the article in order to read it. Something wrong with that site.) http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:B42O-s0f7G8J:www.newscientist.com/article/dn21951-the-evidence-for-sealevel-rises-in-north-carolina.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl =us&client=firefox-beta

posted November 04, 2013 12:15 AM            

There's 31,000 American scientists in fields relating to climate, physics, geology, math, computer science, medicine etc., who say Man Made Global warming is a crock of crap.

So far, no list of 31,000 scientists spouting the Man Made Global Warming is real rhetoric has been produced...though I've asked numerous times for acoustic to produce THE LIST.

posted November 04, 2013 12:23 AM            

We've been over your bogus list several times over several years, Jwhop. Scientists even went so far as to scour all of the peer-reviewed work in order to tally consensus, and came out with a rate in the high 90th percentile (something they didn't have to do in the face of an unscientific list).

posted November 04, 2013 10:13 AM            

Hahahaha Now there's an exercise in logic failure. If you can't prove something is not true..then, it's absolute truth!

But, my grip on truth is far stronger than yours acoustic. On my side I have 31,000 US scientists..about 9,000 of whom hold Ph.Ds. in climate related fields who say Bullshiit and you acoustic...

have no list of scientists who agree with your Man Made Global Warming Religion at all.

So acoustic, where's the consensus? Is it among the untutored non scientist scribblers at your favorite publications and websites? That consensus certainly doesn't exist in scientific circles.

And acoustic, your nonsense that the block-head..non scientist Algore can wrap the mantle of "settled science" around Man Made Global Warming is irrational and illogical.

" Scientists even went so far as to scour all of the peer-reviewed work in order to tally consensus, came out with a rate in the high 90th percentile"acoustic

You're ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading acoustic.

posted November 04, 2013 11:48 AM            

quote:

---

You are not a rational person, AG.

---

This is not an area where you've had success in the past. I don't foresee that changing.

quote:

---

Truth is generally rational. You are not.

---

The truth is that the scientific consensus backs manmade global warming. I trust the scientific view. Therefore, irrationality is not in play on my part. Disagreeing with the widely held scientific majority would be more ill-conceived, and could justify a case for irrationality.

quote:

---

If you allowed yourself to admit that the IPCC "scientists" (the majority of whom are not even climatologists) are lying about that

---

You guys seem to like to throw around the term "lie" as if it's a regular part of normal, everyday life for people. I don't think it is. I don't think there's any motivation whatsoever for those scientists to lie. Also, I don't know that YOU know who makes up the IPCC, or why you're putting forward that they're "not even climatologists". Are you going to give us a break down of what they are specifically, or are you making a vague, generalized charge in hopes of sounding like an authority on it?

quote:

---

But, my grip on truth is far stronger than yours acoustic.

---

Hilarious! In your dreams.

quote:

---

On my side I have 31,000 US scientists..about 9,000 of whom hold Ph.Ds. in climate related fields who say Bullshiit and you acoustic...

---

No. On "your" side, you have a bunch of people that were presented skewed information who answered a poll question appropriately given that information. It's like a person digitally changing a photograph to indicate the sky's red, and asking if everyone sees that the sky is red in the picture. It's ridiculously unscientific, and holds no more water with me today than it did when you first trotted it out.

quote:

---

You're ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading acoustic.

---

You're imagining things, Jwhop. I've been dealing with you two on this subject for years.

quote:

---

" Scientists even went so far as to scour all of the peer-reviewed work in order to tally consensus, came out with a rate in the high 90th percentile"acoustic

---

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

posted November 07, 2013 10:24 AM            

by Steve Goreham
November 4, 2013

Sea level rise is the greatest disaster predicted by Climatism, the belief in catastrophic climate change. Today, leading scientific organizations support the idea that the ocean level is rising due to man-made emissions. Further, they claim to be able to measure ocean level to a high degree of accuracy. But a look at natural ocean variation shows that official sea level measurements are nonsense.

The theory of man-made climate change warns that human emissions of greenhouse gases will raise global temperatures and melt Earth’s icecaps, causing rising oceans and flooding coastal cities. Former Vice President Al Gore’s best-selling book, An Inconvenient Truth, showed simulated pictures of flooding in South Florida, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, and other world locations. Dr. James Hansenpredicted an ocean rise of 75 feet during the next 100 years.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2007, “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 mm per year.” This translates to a 100-year rise of only 7 inches and 12 inches, far below the dire predictions of the climate alarmists.

But three millimeters is about the thickness of two dimes. Can scientists really measure a change in sea level over the course of a year, averaged across the world, which is two dimes thick?

Today, sea level is measured with satellite radar altimeters. Satellites bounce radar waves off the surface of the ocean to measure the distance. Scientific organizations, such as the Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado (CU), use the satellite data to estimate ocean rise. The CU team estimates current ocean rise at 3.2 millimeters per year.

The organizations AVISO (Archiving, Validation, and Interpretation of Satellite Oceanographic Data) of France, CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) of Australia, and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) of the United States agree with the University of Colorado that seas are rising three millimeters per year. Given the huge natural variation in global sea level, the three millimeter number is incredible. The fact that four different organizations have arrived at the same number is suspect.

As Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard shows, ocean level variation is large and affected by many factors. If temperatures rise, water expands, adding to sea level rise. If icecaps melt, levels rise, but if icecaps grow due to increased snowfall, levels fall. If ocean saltiness changes, the water volume will also change.

The land itself moves continuously. Some shorelines are rising and some are subsiding. The land around Hudson Bay in Canada is rising, freed of ice from the last ice age. In contrast, the area around New Orleans is sinking. Long-term movement of Earth’s tectonic plates also changes sea level.

Tides are a major source of ocean variation, primarily caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, the sun, and the rotation of the Earth. Ocean water “sloshes” from shore to shore, with tides changing as much as 38 feet per day at the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia. The global average tide range is about one meter, but this daily change is still 300 times the three-millimeter change that scientists claim to be able to measure over an entire year.

Storms and weather are major factors affecting satellite measurements. Wave heights change by meters each day, dwarfing the annual rise in ocean level. Winds also change the height of the sea. The easterly wind of a strong La Niña pushes seas at Singapore to a meter higher than in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Satellites themselves have error bias. Satellite specifications claim a measurement accuracy of about one or two centimeters. How can scientists then measure an annual change of three millimeters, which is almost ten times smaller than the error in daily measurements? Measuring tools typically must have accuracy ten times better than the quantity to be measured, not ten times worse. Dr. Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology commented on the satellite data in 2007, “It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”

Scientists add many “fudge factors” to the raw data. The same measurement taken by each of the three satellites, TOPEX, JASON-1, and JASON-2, differs by 75 millimeters and must be corrected. As a natural adjustment, researchers add 0.3 millimeters to the measured data, because ocean basins appear to be getting larger, able to hold more water, and reducing apparent ocean levels.

Tide gauges are also used to “calibrate” the satellite data. But gauge measurements are subject to errors of one or two centimeters, again many times more than the sea level rise to be measured.

Clearly, the official three millimeter sea level rise number is a product of scientific “group think.” Not only is this number far below what can be accurately measured, but all leading organizations support this nonsense number. Could it be that our leading scientists must endorse sea-level rise to support the ideology of man-made global warming?

posted November 07, 2013 02:01 PM            

quote:

---

by Steve Goreham

---

Know this author? Is he a climate scientist, or a partisan? Here's his bio as written by himself: http://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/climate-policies-lock-chains-on-developing-nations/[/UR L]
Looks very much like a partisan to me. A science degree and then an MBA (business degree for those that don't already know), and he wants to be known for both apparently. Wears his Conservative credentials like a badge of honor. Nowhere in his bio were any accolades for his scientific work.

He was a speaker at Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). Heartland has received $67 million from Exxon, the Koch Brothers, and the conservative Scaife family foundations. [URL=http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-goreham]http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-goreham

Definitely getting a partisan vibe now. Anyone else?

quote:

---

Today, sea level is measured with satellite radar altimeters. Satellites bounce radar waves off the surface of the ocean to measure the distance. Scientific organizations, such as the Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado (CU), use the satellite data to estimate ocean rise. The CU team estimates current ocean rise at 3.2 millimeters per year.

The organizations AVISO (Archiving, Validation, and Interpretation of Satellite Oceanographic Data) of France, CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) of Australia, and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) of the United States agree with the University of Colorado that seas are rising three millimeters per year. Given the huge natural variation in global sea level, the three millimeter number is incredible. The fact that four different organizations have arrived at the same number is suspect.

---

CU uses AVISO satellite information, so that's pretty easy to clear up:

AVISO: http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/

Both contain +/- values as well.

No information could be found from NOAA to corroborate this paragraph. I searched and searched. At CSIRO I found a verbal, un-cited confirmation of this number, but being un-cited I don't know where the data is from.

If you look into the information at ANY of these places, you'll find these [following] paragraphs to mis-characterize the work.

quote:

---

As Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard shows, ocean level variation is large and affected by many factors. If temperatures rise, water expands, adding to sea level rise. If icecaps melt, levels rise, but if icecaps grow due to increased snowfall, levels fall. If ocean saltiness changes, the water volume will also change.

The land itself moves continuously. Some shorelines are rising and some are subsiding. The land around Hudson Bay in Canada is rising, freed of ice from the last ice age. In contrast, the area around New Orleans is sinking. Long-term movement of Earth’s tectonic plates also changes sea level.

Tides are a major source of ocean variation, primarily caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, the sun, and the rotation of the Earth. Ocean water “sloshes” from shore to shore, with tides changing as much as 38 feet per day at the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia. The global average tide range is about one meter, but this daily change is still 300 times the three-millimeter change that scientists claim to be able to measure over an entire year.

Storms and weather are major factors affecting satellite measurements. Wave heights change by meters each day, dwarfing the annual rise in ocean level. Winds also change the height of the sea. The easterly wind of a strong La Niña pushes seas at Singapore to a meter higher than in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

---

All of these things are taken into account in measuring sea level rise. You couldn't produce a more moot argument than this.

CSIRO:
The sea level rise does continue to be an issue. It’s been going up globally by an average of about just over three millimetres per year for the last three decades. Sea level rises around Australia are not uniform, and the sea level does not go up like water in a still bath which is having a slow tap run into it; it doesn’t rise uniformly all around the world. Sea levels vary, and the rates of rise vary from place to place.

Australia, for reasons associated with ocean circulations and wind patterns on the oceans, has seen larger rises around its coastlines on average than the rest of the world. But the major story is that we can expect to see sea level rise continuing, and most of that sea level rise is because of thermal expansion of the oceans – that is the ocean waters expanding as the climate warms. http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Multimedia/CSIROpod/Youre-getting-warmer.aspx

The heat content of the world's oceans has increased during recent decades and accounts for more than 90 per cent of the total heat accumulated by the land, air and ocean since the 1970s.

This warming increases the volume of ocean waters and is a major contribution to sea-level rise. Ocean warming is continuing, especially in the top several hundred metres of the ocean. http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Questions-and-Answers-clim ate-change/How-else-are-the-oceans-changing.aspx

Sea levels can change for a variety of reasons over a range of different time scales. At the daily timescale, sea levels might change as a result of tides, wave activity or storm surges, as well as events such as earthquakes and tsunamis.

There are some changes that occur as a result of seasonal changes, such as warming in summer and cooling in winter in both hemispheres, and some are annual changes associated with natural climate variability, such as El Niño and La Niña events.

Of greatest interest to researchers studying climate change are the sea-level changes occurring over multiple decades. http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Questions-and-Answers-climate-chan ge/Why-do-sea-levels-change.aspx

AVISO: I think all of the protests mentioned in the article are referred to on this page: http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/msl-science -issues.html

NOAA's summary description of the factors that go into sea level rise measuring:
There are a number of factors that contribute to long and short-term variations in sea level. Short-term variations generally occur on a daily basis and include waves, tides, or specific flood events, such as those associated with a winter snow melt, or hurricane or other coastal storm. Long-term variations in sea level occur over various time scales, from monthly to several years, and may be repeatable cycles, gradual trends, or intermittent anomalies. Seasonal weather patterns, variations in the Earth's declination, changes in coastal and ocean circulation, anthropogenic influences (such as dredging), vertical land motion, and the El Niño Southern Oscillation are just a few of the many factors influencing changes in sea level over time. When estimating sea level trends, a minimum of 30 years of data are used in order to account for long-term sea level variations and reduce errors in computing sea level trends based on monthly mean sea level. Accounting for repeatable, predictable cycles, such as tidal, seasonal, and interannual variations allows computation of a more accurate long-term sea level trend. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/faq.shtml#q2

quote:

---

Dr. Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology commented on the satellite data in 2007, “It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”

---

He said that several years ago regarding the patterns from 1993-2004. If you look him up, his views are aligned with the scientific community, though he doesn't wish to become a part of the debate. He's even lamented being used in a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle:

He was one of the scientists interviewed in the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle but says his: discussion was grossly distorted by context... My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped [4]. He has also said: Durkin says that I reacted to the way the film portrayed me because of pressure from my colleagues. This is completely false. I did hear almost immediately from colleagues in the UK who saw the film who didn't berate me. They simply said, "This doesn't sound like you, this seems to be distorting your views, you better have a look at this". And having had a look at what they did with my comments in the film out of context and cutting away many of the important things that I thought were important that dealt with the science of it, it was a complete distortion of what I had told Durkin I believed. [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wunsch

This guy gets used by that documentary, and then his quote gets attached to this skeptical agenda piece you've presented. It's sad when a completely moderate, open-minded scientist gets rail-roaded by the sceptical agenda.

Here's another excerpt from Dr. Carl Wunsch:

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars’ because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.

The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,…). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

Why would he add specifically that the "sea level will continue to rise" if your article which cites him has any merit?

quote:

---

Clearly, the official three millimeter sea level rise number is a product of scientific “group think.” Not only is this number far below what can be accurately measured, but all leading organizations support this nonsense number. Could it be that our leading scientists must endorse sea-level rise to support the ideology of man-made global warming?

---

posted November 07, 2013 03:48 PM            

quote:

---

Even though we are supposedly now at the highest levels, where is the warming?

---

Didn't we already discuss this? It's in the oceans.

All the rest of your claims are the same unproven stuff you've been trying to get away with all along.

Here's a compiled list of issues you can bring up, which have been dealt with by the scientific community: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

posted November 10, 2013 08:00 AM            

Sea levels have been rising for the last 25,000 years or so; since the end of the last Ice Age. That's right blockheads, sea levels have been rising since your Stone Age brothers and sisters started driving their CO2 emitting SUVs, burning coal in their CO2 emitting coal fired electricity producing power plants and emitting CO2 from the smokestacks of their manufacturing plants.

Yes blockheads, your Stone Age brothers and sisters ended the last Ice Age by polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide..CO2. Hey blockheads, it's your asinine theory that CO2..carbon dioxide is an air pollutant. It's your asinine theory that man made CO2..carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming.